|
EnderJSC wrote:
The only valid license you could append to that code would be the “public domain license” anyway, so why bother (it’s already assumed).
Why would a Public Domain license be the only one applicable? And moreover, why would it be assumed?
IIRC, these days (and in the US), works are copyrighted as soon as they are put to a medium. I believe this includes source code, so a copyright exists on it (owned by the author). In order to use the code, you would have to copy (reproduce) it in some form; in other words, infringe on that copyright. Unless, or course, there is copy in (or accompanying) the material stating it is in the public domain or grants a license, and the terms of that license, for use.
Of course, IANAL, and I could be wrong. If so, please feel free to site (read: provide an actual example of) the law, statute, or precident that would indicate so.
Peace!
-=- James
Tip for inexperienced drivers: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!
Articles -- Products: Delete FXP Files & Check Favorites
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, I am referring to library code.
Years ago, my previous employer paid a fortune per developer seat for the RogueWave tools.h++ (and other) C++ libraries. I estimate their libraries were about 5 times the average price at the time. Our justification was that it was decent code and we would only have to pay maintenance after the initial outlay.
After we had standardized on tools.h++ and used it throughout everything, RogueWave decided to change the license to require very high royaltees based upon the gross sales dollars of our application (of course, they still charged a fortune per developer seat). We pretty much had to upgrade due to compatibility issues with MSVC++.
It was a complete disaster. The senior development groups were discredited due to our error. Other groups went totally "Not Invented Here" - designing everything themselves even if they could have purchased libraries for a fraction of the cost of development.
I suppose the only strategy that would protect you would be that initial licensees should be immune to any future license changes.
Dale Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Hey! I know about that specific problem!
IMHO, The library itself, tools.h++ (now known as source pro c++ core) is pure joy and,
sadly, the (new) licencing model is pure evil.
If I were you, I would start using some "cheapo" (free) libraries out of dot net.
Can't beat the price!
Also, about designing everything by oneself is also evil. Come on! I can still remember 10 years ago, when I started to program in C++, I would spend afternoons workin on some "collection" classes.
As an expert in data structure (now and 10 years ago too), I can vouch that my "collections" were working, in the limited scope of my in home stuff.
Now, with more experience, I say that general purpose collection libraries, such as tools.h++ (aka source pro c++), is a whole project on its own.
When I work on a specific application project and look for a robust collection library, or when I need simple, isomorphic or polymorphic streaming, I don't want to pause for 5-6 days and cook one on my own! I need something ready made, pre-tested and calibrated for efficiency. The last thing I want is to spend a whole lot of time only to discover 3-6 months later, that my quick hack that was good enough at the time, is either buggy or not efficient enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Bamaco2 wrote:
The last thing I want is to spend a whole lot of time only to discover 3-6 months later, that my quick hack that was good enough at the time, is either buggy or not efficient enough.
I can't agree more! I wish more people felt the same way.
Dale Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
I try to think like this when I need something:
- When something I can afford is available and perceive the quality to be good enough, I get it.
- When I cant find it, I write it, as simple as possible, w/o undue attention to "optimizations".
|
|
|
|
|
The license I put on my code depends on what I am trying to achieve by releasing the code.
I will choose different licensing depending on whether I am I trying to:
- make money
- help others improve their coding skills
- provide a useful tool
- improve my status in a community, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto.
I notice that this post has several votes, and up to this point, every vote has been a 5 (including mine) which would indicate that a lot of others have the same POV and just didn't feel like commenting.
Although I would say that if we're talking exclusively about any articles I might one day publish on CodeProject, I would say public domain. If I weren't willing to make it public domain, I'd never publish it here.
Maybe this poll should have used checkboxes instead of radio buttons.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM user WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
On both ends of the spectrum, absolutely free code (even if copyright is retained) or commercial code are both best.
Any "gray area" license that makes you think about usage and the implications of usage is not good.
When using code, I shouldn't have to feel that I am being forced into a licensing scheme for MY code that uses someone elses code.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think GPL evil... But rather it think it's necessary to have both code thats purely for opensource work only to keep it opensource in all it's forms...and free code that can be used in any form of project <- which is why i like codeproject, when the code authors don't append the gpl brand :P.
|
|
|
|
|
what does "But rather it think it's necessary to have both code thats purely for opensource work only to keep it opensource in all it's forms" mean?
Retrictive licenses are stifling.
In fact, you appreciate "...codeproject, when the code authors don't append the gpl brand."
|
|
|
|
|
FocusedWolf wrote:
opensource
By definition the code is not "open" if there are requirements attached to it's use. The vast majority of open source code is useless to the vast majority of developers becuase the vast majority of developers work for companies who sell closed source software...
Regards,
Brian Dela 
Now Bloging![^]
|
|
|
|
|
ever heard of the LGPL and the BSD and the MPL licenses?
--
Raoul Snyman
Saturn Laboratories
e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za
web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/
linux user: #333298
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course. But I was responding to the post about GPL and I was talking about GPL and copyleft licences specifically. Not MPL, BSD, LGPL, MIT, etc, etc, etc.
Regards,
Brian Dela
Now Bloging![^]
|
|
|
|
|
No, what is a license? (only kidding) 
Gupta Team Developer 3.1
VC++ 2003
Oracle 8i
W2K-XP
|
|
|
|
|
I used to think that way too.
And for libraries of useful components, I still think GPL is a bad idea, although that's why they invented the LGPL.
However for those people who want to release full blown project such as Linux, Apache, Mozilla etc which are useable pretty much off the shelf, then I have no problem with them setting their own licensing terms. After all, I can take Linux, customise it for my embedded hardware and sell it. Less development time means more profit, it is only fair that I release my modifications back.
The more I use software, the more I wish I had the source code to alter things. I play a number of old games which have annoying little bugs, if the developers had released their code as GPL like ID did with Doom and Quake. I could fix the bugs and carry on playing happily.
GPL isn't as evil as people make out. It is a different way of thinking about software IP than we are used to. It does not match most of our current business models but I think we are going to have to adapt to new ways of making money out of software anyway.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
For large-scale self-contained "community" projects, such as Linux, I see your point, and partially agree. However, those are just lesser evils, encouraging stifling behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
jaxterama wrote:
However, those are just lesser evils, encouraging stifling behavior
I'm not sure why it is stifling behaviour.
I'm sure most GPL authors would be happy to sell you a commercial licence to their code if you asked. I know I used to dislike the GPL because I thought it was going to take away my ability to make money writing code. I was wrong, outsourcing to cheaper countries is doing that anyway.
I've learnt that it isn't how I licence my source code that makes me money. It is my service to my customers that makes me the money. It's my ability to build software solutions that solve my clients problems that pays the bills.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I'm sure most GPL authors would be happy to sell you a commercial licence to their code if you asked.
I believe that's illigal. Isn't GPL a way to give the rights of your code to the public?
In that matter you don't have rights to sell the code any more than i do. 
Once you release something under GPL you can't change the licence later, all future version should also be under GPL and you can't use the same code under a second licence. By doing this you are violating my right!
( Of course i am not legal expert and never read the GPL. so i might be wrong)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Memory leaks is the price we pay \0
01234567890123456789012345678901234
|
|
|
|
|
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
I believe that's illigal. Isn't GPL a way to give the rights of your code to the public?
In that matter you don't have rights to sell the code any more than i do.
Once you release something under GPL you can't change the licence later, all future version should also be under GPL and you can't use the same code under a second licence. By doing this you are violating my right!
Not as I understand it. As author of the code you retain the copyright which means you can relicence the code as you see fit. Obviously the GPL version is still there for anybody to use under the GPL terms, but a company unhappy with the GPL can buy a commercial licence from the original author.
Grey areas arise when accepting code contributions back from the community. Usually most projects ask for you to assign copyright to them.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
> (Of course i am not legal expert and never read the GPL. so i might be wrong)
i can see that you've never read the GPL. the GPL does NOT give your rights to the code to the public. you retain full copyright of all the code you wrote.
the gist of the GPL is this:
- the code remains the property of the author(s)
- you accept the code as is, and don't hold the author liable for any damages you inflict upon yourself 
- when redistributing the application/library/whatever *must* include the source code
- you may not sell the source code or the binary code
- any derived or additional code must also use the GPL
the LGPL is almost exactly the same, except that the last point does not apply... if you use GPL code in your app, it must be GPL too, if you use the LGPL in your app, your app doesn't have to be GPL or LGPL. the MPL (Mozilla Public License) is even less restrictive than that...
--
Raoul Snyman
Saturn Laboratories
e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za
web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/
linux user: #333298
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx, for the info.
Still it doesn't seem very usefull for those who'd like to use the program. They can't make any changes/updates to the code unless the copyright holder gives them copyright ownership too. Otherway is like giving their rights to someone else. If they used or going to use the same peace of code on one of their applications is a violation of GPL, right?
Also the LGPL is not for any kind of app but only for drivers and services. If anything gets mixed with your program is dangerous. There is a fine line there, it could easilly said that your program is build around the LGPL.
So, for the public, it's more restrictive than say MIT language. My opinion about GPL has changes but not for the better. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Memory leaks is the price we pay \0
01234567890123456789012345678901234
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I used to think that way too.
Hmmmm, somebody is using it now 
Frankly, I was surprised to see Marc Clifton MyXaml under GPL,
but somebody must survive!
Best regards,
Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Selormey wrote:
Frankly, I was surprised to see Marc Clifton MyXaml under GPL,
MyXaml is dual-licenced, you can either use GPL or buy a commercial licence. There is a reason why MyXaml went GPL but I'm sure Marc will fill you in on the specifics.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Hmmmm, somebody is using it now
Not yet. However I am thinking of opening up my source archives under the GPL. Cleaning up the code takes forever though and some of the stuff wasn't written by me.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the GPL is obvious - by being viral you are forced to make any code that uses GPL code also GPL'd. This effectively prevents me from using GPL'd code in any commercial work that I do - it certainly does not encourage me to generate more OpenSource software as the FSF advocates.
The LGPL was, I agree, supposed to fix that, but the fact that Richard Stallman actively discourages people from using the LGPL, and the Free Software Foundation have deprecated its use.
This has caused me all sorts of pain, and has put me off the OpenSource world considerably. Some things from OpenSource are great, like Apache, where they can be used out of the box, and you are unlikely to use them as a library. But if you want library code to be actually used by real developers, then you pretty much can't use the GPL.
It becomes even worse in the real world where you use libraries from many sources. At work, we use both BCGSoft, and CodeJock windows libraries. These are not OpenSource, and we have had to pay to get access to the source code. Any attempt to include a GPL'd library into our software would require us to release the entire software base, which we are legally obliged not to do. That means we can use commerial or GPL'd libraries - not both. I recently had to write a lexer and parser from scratch, because none of the libraries I evaluated had suitable licence arrangements.
I agree therefore that GPL is Evil - but worse still, Richard Stallman &c are shooting themselves in the foot by withdrawing backing for LGPL which makes the OpenSource movement usable. They have done it to increase the amount of OpenSource software, but are actually doing the reverse.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
